dynamic clocking on GPU is not new. normally, the cards would have 2D at a low 300mhz and 700+Mhz for 3D. The "new" feature in Kepler is that it is able to go beyond the spec speed of 700+Mhz if the thermo-envelope permits it.

So if the situation is a very straight forward computation work and does not heat up the GPU at 700Mhz, it will overclock itself to say... 1000Mhz so that the task can be done more quickly while staying within the thermo-envelope.

Why not have it on previous GPU? I believe this type of thermo management requires additional hardware sensors built-in to monitor the GPU precisely and ensure that it does not get cooked. It can be done in software but the profile can't be as aggressive.

This is how Intel CPU works. I'm guessing that is how Kepler will work.

To me the OC to 950 @ High load & downclock to 300MHz @ Low load seems to be nVidia's version of AMD's 'PowerTune' & 'Zero Core'(although Zerocore can bring down consumption to about 3W by turning off fan too).
Bringing down speed to 300MHz might compel us to doubt the efficiency & reliability at higher speeds but I believe it really is a power saving feature rather than a way to mitigate any of Kepler's problems.
Again, lets hope for a competitive Kepler series rather than a below par one! Its good for us consumers.

Not sure if Kepler will be exactly the same as Intel CPU. In the case of Intel CPU, you'll get less throttling if you have better cooling (assuming you've free-up your CPU via bios correctly).

Click to expand...

Logically, from a thermal envelope standpoint, there is bound to be more throttling of GPU OC because mid/high-end GPUs in general have higher 'TDP' than CPU and it has to be kept within limits.
Hence you cannot exactly match the OC characteristics/capability of CPU and GPU but only compare to an extent on the basis of computational load.

well part of it has to be hardware, to have it able to support the states correctly in the first place.

the rest is on the firmware i guess, because each card behaves different much like CPU's, so the profiles must be set in the firmware on each card (and could be modified by the end user later)

Click to expand...

A lot of video cards support altering voltage and clocks at the software level now. Yes, firmware changes would be required if the hardware manages this, but if the software is, the technology is already there via the I2C bus, as least on 6800 and 6900 series cards.

A lot of video cards support altering voltage and clocks at the software level now. Yes, firmware changes would be required if the hardware manages this, but if the software is, the technology is already there via the I2C bus, as least on 6800 and 6900 series cards.

Click to expand...

but they cant do it dynamically with so many increments.

this isnt off/2D/3D/OC, its going to have ten steps in between each of those.

lets say you fire up team fortress 2 and leave Vsync on: the card might only clock up to 30% of its total power to do so, and it will sit there, saving you power, heat, and noise.

so instead of running at 100% clocks and 30% load, it could now run at 30% clocks at 100% load, if that makes sense to you.

this isnt off/2D/3D/OC, its going to have ten steps in between each of those.

lets say you fire up team fortress 2 and leave Vsync on: the card might only clock up to 30% of its total power to do so, and it will sit there, saving you power, heat, and noise.

so instead of running at 100% clocks and 30% load, it could now run at 30% clocks at 100% load, if that makes sense to you.

Click to expand...

Oh, I do understand, I'm just saying that software has direct control of voltages, core clocks, memory clocks, and gpu load. This can be done dynamically in software, that is my point. You don't need power "states" to dynamically adjust clocks and voltages, as long as you have access to the I2C bus. It's a matter of how well and how quickly it can be done because doing things on hardware will always be faster than software. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying it isn't necessary and what is needed is practically already there.

How could Nvidia spin a high TDP that prevents their card from exceeding competition?

Simply lower clocks and introduce the clocks-performance level they were aiming for as a new "feature".

This is NOT like turbo, as that slows other unused cores down to maintain the same power envelope, it doesnt speed all cores up, what Intel and AMD call a overall faster chip is a new product name, not a feature.

I do not understand the purpose of this. The way it is presented suggests to me that nVidia had another Fermi on their hands, and the card cannot handle high clocks all the time without having issues. This seems the opposite of power saving to me, as lowering the clocks under lower load would lead to higher GPU utilization, which just doesn't make sense.

It's like if they let the card run high FPS, it can pull too much current? I mean, there's no point in running 300 FPS in Unreal or Quake 4, and in these apps, a slower GPU would still give reasonable framerates when downclocked. So they are saving power by limiting FPS?

I HAZ CONFUUZ!!!

Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong here, but wouldnt 300Mhz @ .8v use less power than 850Mhz @ 1.1v? It still takes 1.1v at 850Mhz regardless of % load, no? I do not know enough about this stuff.

PHK also mentioned that GTX 680 has max TDP 195W and fan will have low noise.

Click to expand...

It was also mentioned/rumored that the turbo is only 7% of stock clocks. I mean, that nets you maybe a couple FPS, usually not the difference between playable and not, ya know? Im leaning on the side of pointless myself.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but wouldnt 300Mhz @ .8v use less power than 850Mhz @ 1.1v? It still takes 1.1v at 850Mhz regardless of % load, no? I do not know enough about this stuff.

Click to expand...

I was thinknig that runnign 500FPS in quake 3 would pull more power, potentially, than the 120FPS or so amx that any monitor can display. So it makes sense to limited teh Gup speed to lower power cunsumption in that instance.

But to increase speed while under full load? Why not just have that full power available when needed, and just worry about the lower-load scenarios?

Admittedly I know probably less than you do, as GPUs really aren't my thing, so I was serious in that I am confused about this, and need more info, or a different way to explain why they are doing it this way.

And if anything, this relates to TSMC having issues...AMD and Nv seemingly have just chosen to deal with it differently. We know that the current 7-series cards have HUGE OC potential...to me it doesn't make sense that they didn't release those cards @ 1000 MHz and let the OEMs have 1100-1125 for OC editions...

I'm not saying what nV is doing is wrong, but that it's weird, and curious, and I'd like to know more.

I was thinknig that runnign 500FPS in quake 3 would pull more power, potentially, than the 120FPS or so amx that any monitor can display. So it makes sense to limited teh Gup speed to lower power cunsumption in that instance.

But to increase speed while under full load? Why not just have that full power available when needed, and just worry about the lower-load scenarios?

Admittedly I know probably less than you do, as GPUs really aren't my thing, so I was serious in that I am confused about this, and need more info, or a different way to explain why they are doing it this way.

And if anything, this relates to TSMC having issues...AMD and Nv seemingly have just chosen to deal with it differently. We know that the current 7-series cards have HUGE OC potential...to me it doesn't make sense that they didn't release those cards @ 1000 MHz and let the OEMs have 1100-1125 for OC editions...

I'm not saying what nV is doing is wrong, but that it's weird, and curious, and I'd like to know more.

Click to expand...

I think AMD is clocking their hardware just enough to keep it that much over nVidia's current line-up. It would make sense, even more so with the power consumption of the 7900-series GPUs at stock speeds.

The PHK information is clearly fake. They list the 7950 as a 1.5GB card and the gap between the 7950 and 7970 is WAY too large to be legit. People were also saying the 7970 only scores that high with massive overclocks.

I was thinknig that runnign 500FPS in quake 3 would pull more power, potentially, than the 120FPS or so amx that any monitor can display. So it makes sense to limited teh Gup speed to lower power cunsumption in that instance.

But to increase speed while under full load? Why not just have that full power available when needed, and just worry about the lower-load scenarios?

Admittedly I know probably less than you do, as GPUs really aren't my thing, so I was serious in that I am confused about this, and need more info, or a different way to explain why they are doing it this way.

And if anything, this relates to TSMC having issues...AMD and Nv seemingly have just chosen to deal with it differently. We know that the current 7-series cards have HUGE OC potential...to me it doesn't make sense that they didn't release those cards @ 1000 MHz and let the OEMs have 1100-1125 for OC editions...

I'm not saying what nV is doing is wrong, but that it's weird, and curious, and I'd like to know more.

Click to expand...

More than likely the early adoption to new process helped AMD as it did ATI in many cases, 5770 anyone, and the extra things like more power interconnects per layer making a larger chip overall means more stable power delivery and thus the ability to run lower overall voltage, and gain a larger yield from the chips produced.

Nvidia has historically failed to allow for much manufacturing error, meaning a substantially lower yield on new processes, and clock/heat issues resulting from it.

If you have a voltage drop of .2v in the core and you have a targeted speed of 1Ghz at 1.2vcore, you then have to run 1.4vcore to achieve your target numbers, but at a hugely increased thermal load. I am guessing this is Nvidias problem with this chip, but also why they have been able to beat AMD/ATI in performance per mm. How many threads about dead 8800's do we have due to heat issues? Lower the voltage and heat output and your competitive advantage dies when your clocks fall, and your yields suffer.

More than likely the early adoption to new process helped AMD as it did ATI in many cases, 5770 anyone, and the extra things like more power interconnects per layer making a larger chip overall means more stable power delivery and thus the ability to run lower overall voltage, and gain a larger yield from the chips produced.

Nvidia has historically failed to allow for much manufacturing error, meaning a substantially lower yield on new processes, and clock/heat issues resulting from it.

If you have a voltage drop of .2v in the core and you have a targeted speed of 1Ghz at 1.2vcore, you then have to run 1.4vcore to achieve your target numbers, but at a hugely increased thermal load. I am guessing this is Nvidias problem with this chip, but also why they have been able to beat AMD/ATI in performance per mm. How many threads about dead 8800's do we have due to heat issues? Lower the voltage and heat output and your competitive advantage dies when your clocks fall, and your yields suffer.

Click to expand...

Touchè, friend. You post has been one of the most sensible I've read in a while. nVidia cards to seem to have a lot of heat issues. I've never had an ATi/AMD video card fail on me, but I have lost a GeForce 7900 GT to the jaws of death (vram death, that is). For the power that AMD chips use, they're efficient and the run well and even AMD's Llano chips are proof how you can run power usage low enough and still get a reasonable amount of performance out of an APU. You don't cram more shaders on your GPU by using more power. You make them more efficient and smaller and then you cram more of them on, so when you do overclock, a little extra goes a long way.

With this all said though, I think Kepler is going to be screaming fast, but how much more does your electricity bill have to be to gain that performance and is it worth using your computer as a mini-space heater?

The rumors have said it will use substantially less power, and withe the Dynamic Clocks it could be even less than that. I think there should be little doubt that a GTX680 will be faster than an HD7970, but the real issue is cost, power consumption, and noise. Nvidia has everything to gain by sticking to their guns and selling this is a mid-range GPU. Their sales would skyrocket. But knowing how American Economics work (See: Crazy) it will probably be priced competatively and sold for a little more than the HD7970.

Everything so far except that in a heavily NV game it is only 10% faster and has the same power plus, a smaller die, as large of a cooler, and a new "feature" that has yet to be proven beneficial, is logs in the toilet.
If it were so much cooler they would have used a single slot cooler.
If it was so much faster they would be shouting it from the roof.
If it were available........but its not.

So here we are. Speculation about a feature that mah help fix a problem no one had or cared about, or just some media spin from marketing to generate some green fog in our brains.

Everything so far except that in a heavily NV game it is only 10% faster and has the same power plus, a smaller die, as large of a cooler, and a new "feature" that has yet to be proven beneficial, is logs in the toilet.
If it were so much cooler they would have used a single slot cooler.
If it was so much faster they would be shouting it from the roof.
If it were available........but its not.

So here we are. Speculation about a feature that mah help fix a problem no one had or cared about, or just some media spin from marketing to generate some green fog in our brains.